This release focusing on women’s safety is the first in a planned three-part series, with releases on tolerance toward minorities and intellectual intimidation to follow in the coming weeks.

New York City – When families weigh their choices on which college their children should attend, they tend to focus on cost, academic reputation and campus amenities. The Campus Tolerance Foundation today released analysis based on new research that calls for colleges and universities to provide more information to families about the atmosphere on campus, especially the treatment students can expect to face as members of racial, ethnic, gender or intellectual minorities.

The analysis released today focuses on the subject of how safe young women on college campuses are, one of the major areas of the pilot study “If I’d Only Known: University Students Talk About Tolerance and Safety on Campus, A Pilot Study to Develop Tolerance Ratings.”

The overall goal of the research project is to eventually develop a comprehensive, broadly-accepted national survey mechanism that fairly assesses the atmosphere on 200 college campuses across the nation. The researchers developed a pilot test that allowed students at three different schools to contribute their own voices anonymously. The aim of the project and of the Campus Tolerance Foundation is to develop a systematic way to evaluate tolerance and respect on individual campuses, and this pilot study is the first step in the process of developing such a system for rating levels of tolerance on individual campuses.

“This research uncovered many reports of bias toward members of minority groups. I believe these are dimensions many universities would rather not be judged on,” said Marcella Rosen, Founder of the Campus Tolerance Foundation. “We didn’t set out to examine safety for women on campus, but many individuals in early focus group research for the initiative identified this as an important area of tolerance and safety that wasn’t being addressed adequately by college leaders, and then the survey results produced other revelations about women’s safety that really surprised us.”

A total of 1,039 students responded to the pilot study’s online survey: 354 from Michigan State University, 310 from Columbia College and 375 from Berkeley. The vast majority of the sample was derived from responses to ads on Facebook targeting current undergraduate students at the three colleges. Prior to fielding the survey, multiple focus groups with current undergraduates were conducted at each of the three campuses (or nearby). A full methodology describing the limitations of the conclusions that can be drawn from this experiment in polling students through Facebook is included in the research report. The report, full questionnaire and top line data for each college are at: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/if_id_only_known.pdf

The research was conducted by FDR Group for the Campus Tolerance Foundation, with assistance from Public Agenda. Support for the pilot research was provided to the Campus Tolerance Foundation by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Irvin Stern Foundation.

“One of the most promising aspects of this pilot study is that it shows you can develop a system for understanding conditions on individual campuses,” said FDR Group President Steve Farkas. “The instrument is sensitive enough to pick up both positive and negative attitudes about the atmosphere on a specific campus and differentiate between conditions of various universities. We will continue to refine both the instrument and the methodology, but this is a very good start.”

Analysis of Initial Research on Women's Safety on Campus

On all three of the campuses surveyed, students reported issues of safety for women with a frequency that is likely to cause concern among families, administrators and students. Among all students surveyed, 48 percent said that it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” a female could be the victim of a “date rape” on their campus (MSU 65 percent, Columbia 39 percent, Berkeley 40 percent). Sexual harassment is also a problem, with 40 percent of respondents saying it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that female students would be sexually harassed on campus (MSU 59 percent, Columbia 30 percent, Berkeley 30 percent).

On a more positive note, the findings indicate few students (16 percent) believe female students would be taken less seriously in the classroom because they are female (MSU 22 percent, Columbia 11 percent, Berkeley 15 percent). The study also looks at the likelihood of faculty having inappropriate relationships with female students, and the degree to which administrators take reports of student sexual abuse seriously.

In findings related to gender-bias, the study looks at attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students. The pilot test findings seem to give reasons to be hopeful in this area, with 77 percent of respondents reporting that their campus is extremely open and accepting of LGBT students (MSU 62 percent, Columbia 87 percent, Berkeley 84 percent responded with a “4” or “5” on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means extremely closed and unaccepting, and 5 means the campus is extremely open and accepting). To get at equal treatment perceptions, the research also asked students to reflect on how negatively group status would reflect on a student’s candidacy for student body president. On this question, female gender had relatively little negative association (10 percent said it would hurt chances), and LGBT status had some negative association (34 percent said it would hurt a student body president candidate’s chances of being elected), but 58 percent and 37 percent of respondents said it would hurt the candidate if he or she were politically conservative or an Evangelical Christian, respectively. Of some concern, however, is this: 46 percent say they have seen graffiti or heard verbal insults directed at LGBT students on their campus (MSU 53 percent, Columbia 47 percent, Berkeley 38 percent).

Analyses on Intellectual Safety, Racial/Ethnic Tensions to Be Released Soon

In the coming weeks, the Campus Tolerance Foundation will release analyses on two additional areas of concern about the level of tolerance on these three pilot study campuses. The first will look at students’ reports of tolerance of minorities. The second will examine the degree to which students believe their campuses welcome a wide variety of intellectual perspectives.

“Are America’s College Campuses Intellectually and Physically Safe?” is a pilot study and is, by design, not conclusive. Rather, the authors and sponsors intend to shine a light on the need for more questions about campus safety – in all of its variations – and generate a national examination about what information families need to truly assess the schools they send their children to.

CAMPUS TOLERANCE FOUNDATION was founded in 2002, to counter anti-Semitism on college campuses. Subsequently, the mission was broadened to fight all intolerance on college campuses. It is a group of Americans of many faiths, who champion diversity of opinion and believe in truth, tolerance and equal opportunity. www.campustolerance.com

THE FARKAS DUFFETT RESEARCH GROUP (FDR GROUP) is a full-service, nonpartisan public opinion research company with a mission to help foundations and other nonprofits understand how the general public and other key groups feel and think about their initiatives. www.thefdrgroup.com

Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues.